Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Developmental Drive

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Evolutionary developmental biology. @Elmidae: You seem to have a good idea of what can be usefully merged, perhaps you could do the honours? – Joe (talk) 14:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Developmental Drive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a repository for essays.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 04:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 04:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 04:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Partial merge to Evolutionary developmental biology. This article is too much a a sweeping messay to be useful in its current form. The 'History' and 'Developmental Reprogramming' sections are already covered in the above article; sections 3 & 4 might find use (shortened and de-essayed) in Evolutionary_developmental_biology#The_origins_of_novelty, or maybe better Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance or a similar more specialized article. All in all, the subject area has been pretty well covered on WP and while the examples are useful, this detail does not merit a full article with historical run-up. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect (or possibly merge elements) to Evolutionary developmental biology, as per Elmidae. Rather than an essay, the CopyVio report suggests it's more of a reworking, but not a simplification of, the Nature reference. Looks like a college project, but nothing on the article creator's page to indicate one way or another.Nick Moyes (talk) 01:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.